Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Order of optional elements?

Expand Messages
  • Clinton Gallagher
    When writing the XML is there a preferred order to write the optional elements?
    Message 1 of 3 , Oct 27, 2004
      When writing the XML is there a preferred order
      to write the optional elements?

      <%= Clinton Gallagher
    • Randy Morin
      No, the order of elements does not matter in RSS, but I would suggest the preferred order be the order the elements are written up in the spec. Randy
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 6, 2004
        No, the order of elements does not matter in RSS, but I would
        suggest the preferred order be the order the elements are written up
        in the spec.

        Randy
        http://www.kbcafe.com

        --- In RSS2-Support@yahoogroups.com, "Clinton Gallagher"
        <csgallagher@m...> wrote:
        > When writing the XML is there a preferred order
        > to write the optional elements?
        >
        > <%= Clinton Gallagher
      • Bill Kearney
        ... Given that many current aggregators have good sorting features, it s probably better to let them do their own ordering. This does mean, however, that
        Message 3 of 3 , Nov 6, 2004
          > No, the order of elements does not matter in RSS, but I would
          > suggest the preferred order be the order the elements are written up
          > in the spec.
          >
          > --- In RSS2-Support@yahoogroups.com, "Clinton Gallagher"
          > <csgallagher@m...> wrote:
          > > When writing the XML is there a preferred order
          > > to write the optional elements?

          Given that many current aggregators have good sorting features, it's
          probably better to let them do their own ordering. This does mean, however,
          that actually including timestamps within the items would be required.
          There's no other reliable way for an aggregator to order the items
          themselves. Otherwise they're forced to fall back on the time the feed was
          actually downloaded. But that, however, is actually useful independently of
          the item's own timestamp.

          Technically, an RSS-1.0 feed denotes the ordering of it's items using the
          rdf:Seq container. But that's a much-maligned set of subtleties. As such
          it'd probably be better discussed in the rss-dev yahoogroup. It's been
          suggested that some sort of "key" be indicated for the rdf:Seq element but
          that's a rather big can of worms.

          -Bill Kearney
          Syndic8.com
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.